Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski today said he will leave the agency in the coming weeks, four years after being appointed by President Obama. At an all-hands meeting of FCC staff, Genachowski listed all his accomplishments, demonstrating how proud he is of his record:

Over the past four years, we’ve focused the FCC on broadband, wired and wireless, working to drive economic growth and improve the lives of all Americans.

And thanks to you, the Commission’s employees, we’ve taken big steps to build a future where broadband is ubiquitous and bandwidth is abundant, where innovation and investment are flourishing.

To connect all Americans to high-speed Internet, we adopted a landmark overhaul of multi-billion dollar universal service programs, modernizing them from telephone to broadband and creating the Connect America Fund and the Mobility Fund, an unprecedented investment in broadband infrastructure.

To unleash the enormous opportunities of mobile, we pioneered incentive auctions and other cutting-edge spectrum policies. To fuel America’s innovation economy, we put in place the first rules to preserve Internet freedom and openness.

To drive competition and empower consumers, we opposed and modified transactions where necessary, deployed technology to drive transparency, and took unprecedented enforcement actions.

It's true that Genachowski occasionally annoyed corporate interests, presiding over the scuttling of AT&T's attempted takeover of T-Mobile. Genachowski's FCC also blocked LightSquared's proposed cellular network, which would have led to interference with GPS devices (despite pressure from LightSquared's friends in Congress). Angry at the FCC for asserting its authority, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives tried to limit the FCC's power to make rules and set conditions on mergers.

But according to nonprofit public interest groups, Genachowski's tenure was characterized more by allowing corporate interests to override public ones.

Net neutrality loopholes, Americans lacking broadband

Genachowski did preside over the enactment of net neutrality rules and a National Broadband Plan to expand Internet access. But he allowed wireless operators to evade those net neutrality rules, which prevent Internet service providers from blocking lawful content or discriminating against certain kinds of Internet traffic, such as those from competitors. Three years after the National Broadband Plan was announced, one-third of Americans still lack broadband Internet service, either because it isn't available where they live or they can't afford it.

The group Public Knowledge wrote of Genachowksi:

For those of us who represent the public, Chairman Genachowski‘s term can best be described as one of missed opportunities. He had the opportunity, but declined, to solidify the agency’s authority and ability to protect consumers with regard to broadband—the communications system of the present and future. As a result, there is a real danger that the FCC will become a powerless and irrelevant agency as the nation’s communications networks change. The Chairman had the opportunity, but declined, to take several important steps that would have promoted more robust competition in the wireline and wireless broadband market. He punted on special access and permitted two major mergers [Comcast/NBCUniversal and Verizon Wireless/SpectrumCo], spelling the end of 'facilities-based' competition between the cable and telephone industries.

The Chairman deserves credit for defending both the Commission’s data roaming rules and unlicensed spectrum, for permitting DISH Network to provide terrestrial wireless service, and for releasing the staff report that helped to end AT&T’s attempted takeover of T-Mobile. But it remains to be seen whether those positive steps will mitigate the enormous consolidation that has taken place in the broadband marketplace under his watch.

Media reform group Free Press similarly praised the FCC's opposition to AT&T/T-Mobile as well as its "push for more online transparency from broadcasters," but the group ticked off a list of failures as well.

"Instead of acting as the people's champion, he’s catered to corporate interests. His tenure has been marked by wavering and caving rather than the strong leadership so needed at this crucial agency," Free Press wrote. "Genachowski claimed broadband was his agency's top priority, but he stood by as prices rose and competition dwindled. He claimed to be a staunch defender of the open Internet, but his Net Neutrality policies are full of loopholes and offer no guarantee that the FCC will be able to protect consumers from corporate abuse in the future."

Genachowski praised by Obama, telecom companies

Genachowski wasn't universally slammed, though. President Obama said the chairman had a "clear focus on spurring innovation, helping our businesses compete in a global economy and helping our country attract the industries and jobs of tomorrow. Because of his leadership, we have expanded high-speed Internet access, fueled growth in the mobile sector, and continued to protect the open internet as a platform for entrepreneurship and free speech."

The nonprofit Free State Foundation, a proponent of free market policies, said it didn't always agree with Genachowski, but it praised him for "reforming the broken USF [Universal Service Fund] system" and "his efforts to begin processes to get more spectrum available through spectrum auctions."

Telecom companies also gave him high marks, even if they didn't love every one of his decisions. AT&T Senior VP Jim Cicconi released a statement praising the outgoing chairman, saying: "He oversaw the drafting and publishing of our nation’s first National Broadband Plan and he identified the spectrum crisis that led to provisions in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 that will not only make much needed broadband spectrum available for auction but also will hopefully result in the construction of a nationwide, interoperable network for public safety. If that weren’t enough, Chairman Genachowski also issued a unanimous order adopting the first comprehensive reform of universal service and intercarrier compensation. Any chairman should be proud of these accomplishments, which are going to leave a lasting imprint on communications policy in the United States.”

Verizon praised Genachowski's "commitment to encourage expansion and adoption of broadband." Comcast echoed that praise, adding that Genachowski "developed processes across the agency to ensure FCC decisions were data driven and transparent."

"The entire cable industry is grateful to Chairman Genachowski for his exceptional leadership," said Michael Powell, CEO of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association. Powell himself is a former FCC Chairman, a Bush appointee who served from 2001 to 2005.

Sprint praised Genachowski, but for different reasons. Sprint believes the FCC helped preserve the ability of smaller carriers (like Sprint) to compete against AT&T and Verizon Wireless. "From his decision to block AT&T’s proposed takeover of T-Mobile USA, to his efforts to reform the Universal Service Fund, intercarrier compensation, special access and wireless Lifeline, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski has repeatedly stood up for consumers and competition," Sprint Senior VP Vonya McCann wrote.

T-Mobile lauded Genachowski for "using a light regulatory touch when market forces can solve a problem, while at the same time not shying away from intervention when necessary on issues such as roaming, which have brought measurable benefits to consumers."

Genachowski, a Democrat leading the FCC's 3-2 Democratic majority, nonetheless made friends with Republicans. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican and net neutrality opponent who is also stepping down, said Genachowski "proved that through hard work, persistence and creativity, bipartisanship and compromise in policymaking can occur in Washington, even in these days of sharp divisions and gridlock."

Unfinished work on spectrum

Genachowski's departure has been expected for a while and is in line with most recent chairmen, who served about four years each. No replacement has been announced by President Obama yet. The next commissioner will have plenty of issues to deal with, including an incentive auction to decide the future of airwaves controlled by TV broadcasters.

The auction will likely result in spectrum being sold to wireless carriers and other private interests. Some airwaves are also expected to be reserved for unlicensed use, such as white spaces networks designed to increase Internet access, particularly in rural areas. Genachowski also began the process of creating a spectrum sharing system between federal users and cellular companies, and he got the ball rolling on adding 195MHz of unlicensed spectrum to the 5GHz Wi-Fi band.

On the issue of expanding access to unlicensed spectrum, some observers will miss Genachowski's leadership. The Wireless Innovation Alliance, a consortium including public interest groups like Public Knowledge and technology companies like Google and Microsoft, said, "The Chairman rightly recognized the important roles of licensed and unlicensed spectrum in driving our national economy, and that we need more of both. Indeed, unlicensed 'innovation bands' have already generated hundreds of billions of dollars in economic growth and now carry more traffic than licensed bands."

I honestly don't think he did a horrible job, he was just rather spineless in many instances. As the Non-profit groups said, he could have done so much more. He was so close, so many times to being a really effective Chairman at increasing competition, fighting for Net Neutrality, etc but he stopped right before any real progress would have been made.

All in all, rather average with the only real notable thing he did was stop AT&T from purchasing T-Mobile. Still, it was under him that Comcast was allowed to purchase NBC, correct? I suppose that makes him 1 for 2 if that's the case.

I honestly don't think he did a horrible job, he was just rather spineless in many instances.

Would he have done a horrible job in your opinion if he did the exact same things, but stated he held a firmly held belief that they were right? Or a better job? Why do intentions matter here when the end result is the same?

I am most interested in who he goes to work for next. That will show more about where his priorities are. He has bent over backwards trying to give wireless companies more spectrum to hoard, and it has not helped pricing in any way at all.

I honestly don't think he did a horrible job, he was just rather spineless in many instances.

Would he have done a horrible job in your opinion if he did the exact same things, but stated he held a firmly held belief that they were right? Or a better job? Why do intentions matter here when the end result is the same?

What?

I didn't say that at all. I explain exactly what I mean by being spineless in my very next sentence. Just like the article stated where he began drafting up Net Neutrality rules but excluded wireless providers. He didn't go far enough. I'm not speaking about intentions here and I'm not sure where the hell you're getting that from.

While it had thin legal founding, I do respect the man's willingness to push the Third Way net neutrality option in the midst of lots of FUD against NN as a whole. At least he pushed for something. It wasn't enough, IMO, but most others likely would have just backed down completely and spent their careers in a quiet corner not getting shouted at from every angle. He had the balls to try *something*.

Hopefully his successor takes that beginning and runs with it, maybe even going so far as to make internet a telecommunications service again.

Blocking the AT&T buyout of T-Mobile was the obvious positive thing he did; and as mentioned, letting the largest cable company by 3x (Comcast) buy out NBC/Universal and alow dominant control of all those NBC shows, Universal movies and a zillion cable channels will only lead to huge price increases for us, every year.

Many of his other actions will require a few years, to discern their value to the public, I think.

The immediate feedback now, is to see if Genachowski takes a $1 million/year salary-bribe, and does a flagrant sell-out like former FCC Chair Michael "Tivo is God's machine" Powell did (by being a paid shill for the cable companies, and proving he was not serving the public, but just corrupt).

A good public servant works to serve the public, not wealthy corporate interests. I'm hoping the next FCC Chairperson understands this concept.

This nice sentiment becomes more complicated when one realizes those wealthy corporate interests are in fact, part of 'the public', and not some demon Other.

In theory. Maybe 50 years ago. Not today. Today the US corporations are not merely contempt with selling whatever the company was founded to sell, by making it on the cheap in China, and selling it here for a tidy profit. Today they are attempting to monetize everything and anything, at the expense of all else, including our privacy. That lack of any respect for us, their customers, coupled with unsustainable practice of making ever cheaper poor quality crap overseas, ought to push anyone to look for alternatives from smaller companies.

A good public servant works to serve the public, not wealthy corporate interests. I'm hoping the next FCC Chairperson understands this concept.

This nice sentiment becomes more complicated when one realizes those wealthy corporate interests are in fact, part of 'the public', and not some demon Other.

In fact, regulators serve "the public interest", and as you correctly note, "the public" includes more than just consumers. "The public" includes customers (business, residential, government, educational, non-profit, etc.), corporate providers, management, unions, shareholders, debt-holders, competitors, etc. Balancing all of those competing interests to find "the public interest" is not always an easy task.

My guess is most commenters would have preferred that the Chairman rule more often in favor of customers. Suppose for the sake of argument that the FCC had ordered the broadband rates of big telcos down to zero -- obviously customers would have loved that, but where would that leave shareholders, debt-holders, employees, and competitors?

Or suppose he had ordered all broadband facility providers to resell wholesale capacity to third-party ISPs at zero cost? Again, competitors would have loved that, but lowering their input cost is no assurance that customers would get a retail price break.

My point is that there's a lot more to regulation than just making customers happy (and yes I realize my examples are extreme and unrealistic, but I exaggerate to make a point). I'm not claiming Genachowski did the best job -- but I am saying he was given a very difficult job to do, and I doubt seriously if any ars readers could have done better.

A good public servant works to serve the public, not wealthy corporate interests. I'm hoping the next FCC Chairperson understands this concept.

This nice sentiment becomes more complicated when one realizes those wealthy corporate interests are in fact, part of 'the public', and not some demon Other.

In theory. Maybe 50 years ago. Not today. Today the US corporations are not merely contempt with selling whatever the company was founded to sell, by making it on the cheap in China, and selling it here for a tidy profit. Today they are attempting to monetize everything and anything, at the expense of all else, including our privacy. That lack of any respect for us, their customers, coupled with unsustainable practice of making ever cheaper poor quality crap overseas, ought to push anyone to look for alternatives from smaller companies.

Yeah, you aren't wrong. Fact of the matter is though, those components of those companies that work and reside in the U.S. are still part of the U.S. public, and whose interests, frankly, cannot be automatically dismissed as some would seem to wish.

Of course, you aren't wrong as well in that those interests are represented disproportionally because of the wealth (both the good and bad aspects of it) and the cocktail-hour influence of the corporations

I agree it's sad he didn't push forward with net neutrality and also failed at increasing competition / lowering prices for mobile broadband. The situation with the legality of cell phone unlocking is also absurd.

However, the FCC did do a few positive things under his watch:- The one most mentioned already - stopped ATT from swallowing TMo.- Shut down LightSquared's dubious attempt at a satellite->terrestrial spectrum bait and switch that interfered with GPS. - Didn't sell off the old analog TV spectrum to the established carriers. It sounds like they have the ball rolling on the 'white space' databases, so hopefully we'll be seeing some devices that use this spectrum soon.

There is a very simple methodology to determine how effective he was at his job.The second a telecom company praises you, you need to be fired, because you obviously are not doing your job.

That sounds great in theory -- but in practice it's more complicated than that. Many FCC cases involve issues or disputes between two telecom companies. Assuming the FCC decides in favor of one as against the other, the winning party may have nice things to say about the decision and about the Commission. Does that mean the FCC (or the Chairman) isn't doing its job?